No.
>> No?
>> I'm fighting. So, I'm doing it for you.
You're escorting me out. I'm such a
badass. Such a problem. Here we go.
>> Do you need to identify yourself to me?
>> I don't have ID on me. I was
trespassing. I wasn't invited here.
>> Ma'am.
>> You better throw me out. Or have a good
>> I'll call an Uber for you.
>> I don't even know where my day was
going.
Commanding officer.
>> call an Uber for you. Where you going?
>> You want to throw me out? He's recording
it in CASE HE GETS ASSAULTED.
>> ON NOVEMBER 21ST, 2024, officers from
the town of Palm Beach Police Department
responded to an upscale hotel for a
reported disturbance. Three misdemeanor
charges were filed that night:
disorderly intoxication, resisting an
officer without violence, and trespass
after warning. This analysis examines
whether each charge was legally
supported and whether the force used to
affect the arrest met constitutional
standards.
>> Let's go.
You know what? I'll get you out. Okay.
Do you need to trespass?
>> Yeah.
>> Okay. Do you get a ride here or
anything?
>> And if she leaves on her own?
>> Yeah.
Ma'am, are you willing to leave on your
own accord?
>> No.
>> No?
>> I'm fighting. So, I'm doing it for you.
You're escorting me out. I'm such a
badass. Such a problem. Here we go.
>> The first legal question is whether the
subject's conduct satisfied the elements
of Florida Statute Section 856.011,
disorderly intoxication. That statute
requires two elements. The subject must
be intoxicated and must either endanger
the safety of another person or property
or create a public disturbance. The
subject's own words, "I'm fighting.
That's what I'm doing." delivered in
response to a voluntary compliance
request satisfy the disturbance element
on the record, combined with erratic
behavior, refusal to identify herself,
and the account of a corroborating
witness describing deteriorating conduct
that began before arrival at the
property, probable cause for this charge
was established early in the encounter.
The second charge, trespass after
warning under Florida statute section
8-10.09,
requires that the subject and remain on
property after being asked to leave by
an authorized party. Officers made
repeated requests over several minutes.
The subject refused each one. Her
statement, "I kind of want to be
trespassed," demonstrates awareness of
the warning and a deliberate choice to
remain. Willful non-compliance after a
lawful trespass warning satisfies the
statute without additional conduct. This
is the most straightforward of the three
charges.
>> [laughter]
>> I I I'm asking you because if not,
you're going to need to be trespassed,
okay?
>> Oh god.
Oh, I kind of want to trespass, like
>> Okay, we you need to
>> I don't have ID on me. I was
trespassing. I wasn't invited there.
>> Ma'am.
>> You better throw me out. I don't
handcuff me and like don't put me up
against the wall and like how do you
feel? And I'd be like, "The terrible."
>> Ma'am, how'd you get here?
>> I hitchhiked.
>> You got those little friends here.
>> I was like I was hitchhiking in
Thailand.
>> Okay, how are you getting home?
>> I'm going to be hitchhiking in Thailand.
>> Ma'am.
>> Ma'am, please
go home to your wives.
>> Okay, ma'am.
>> I don't want to listen to
>> Ma'am.
>> Don't touch me.
>> Ma'am.
>> You're going to get arrested if you
don't stop.
>> I am.
>> Ma'am.
>> I love you.
>> This is the last This is the last point
before you get handcuffed on you.
>> Shut up. I'm going home.
>> Okay, there's no reason to arrest me.
>> So, do you want me to call the Uber for
you?
>> Do not play with your
>> Do you want me to call you the Uber for
you?
>> Relax.
>> Do you want me the Uber for you?
>> Can you call her an Uber?
>> Where do you live?
>> Shut up.
>> Where do you live?
>> I don't need to show my
>> Where do you live? Where do you live?
Where
>> Ma'am.
>> Do you want me to call the Uber?
>> I'm going to give you one last warning.
>> Do you want to
Where do you live? So I can
I have a good
>> I can call the Uber for you.
>> I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHERE MY NEIGHBORS do
come Commanding officer.
Where do you want to
He's recording it in CASE HE GETS
ASSAULTED.
>> CASEY I
>> MA'AM.
>> NO, KEEP RECORDING.
>> You're going to look bad.
>> OH MY GOD, I CALLED THE PROBLEM. I'M SO
SORRY.
>> LISTEN. LISTEN.
>> OH, I WANT TO HAPPEN.
>> STOP.
>> DON'T DO THAT.
WHAT THE HELL?
WOAH, WOAH, WOAH.
What is wrong with you?
He first of all let's DRAW ME UP
CONSPIRACY.
>> The third charge resisting an officer
without violence under Florida statute
section 843.02
requires obstruction or opposition
during the lawful execution of a legal
duty. By the time officers initiated
physical contact, probable cause for
both disorderly intoxication and
trespass had already been established.
The arrest was lawful. Physical pulling
away from an officer during a lawful
arrest constitutes obstruction under
Florida case law even when no strike or
threat of violence accompanies the
resistance. The subject generated this
charge entirely through her physical
response to a lawful custodial action.
It did not exist until she created it.
>> You're under arrest now. Can you grab
her arms?
>> Don't I'm searching for you guys.
What are you doing?
You can't.
>> Be careful. Be careful.
>> I'M STRUGGLING WITH YOU.
STOP. STOP.
STOP.
>> I'M TRYING NOT TO PUT YOU ON the ground,
ma'am.
>> I ain't I am supposedly being detained.
I'M NAKED NOW.
OH MY GOD, NO.
SERIOUSLY, you guys.
What are you guys doing? This is
harassment.
>> 1 2 3
Turn over.
I'm pulling your skirt back down.
>> You're under arrest.
>> Don't don't
What ARE YOU GUYS DOING?
EXCUSE ME.
SERIOUSLY.
WHAT THE HELL? SERIOUSLY,
YOU GUYS.
I WAS LAYING DOWN.
>> ALL RIGHT.
>> THIS IS HARASSMENT.
>> [laughter]
>> What the hell are you guys doing? You
searched us like that.
>> Stop. Stop. STOP.
>> NO, YOU STOP.
>> You are under arrest.
>> For what?
>> Resisting.
>> For what? Resisting?
>> Drunk and disorderly and resisting
arrest.
>> I did not resist anything. You guys
tackled me. You're
>> That's your car.
Over there. I'm going to hold it up.
Yeah, you got her.
>> What the hell?
She grabbed it.
>> What?
>> He grabbed it. He took it before.
Record.
Let him talk. Let him talk.
>> I've been recording the whole time on my
body cam.
>> Yeah, but y'all just started.
>> Yeah.
>> This is awesome. Little [ __ ] go [ __ ]
yourself.
>> The use of force analysis is governed by
Graham versus Connor, 490 United States
386, decided in 1989. That decision
requires courts to evaluate force from
the perspective of a reasonable officer
on the scene, not with the benefit of
hindsight. Three factors guide that
evaluation.
The severity of the crime at issue,
whether the subject poses an immediate
threat to officers or others, and
whether the subject is actively
resisting or attempting to flee. On the
first factor, severity three
misdemeanors weigh toward restraint.
This factor favors the subject. On the
second factor, immediate threat, the
subject made a statement claiming to
possess a firearm. She referenced
military rank and a commanding officer
relationship. Officers cannot verify or
dismiss such claims in real time. Under
Graham, what matters is what a
reasonable officer knew at the moment
the force decision was made, and a
firearm claim elevates the threat
assessment regardless of its truth. On
the third factor, active resistance, the
subject physically pulled away from
officers during an arrest, requiring a
coordinated takedown to affect custody.
The force applied soft to hard empty
hand control, culminating in a ground
takedown, falls within the accepted
range for the level of resistance
presented. No impact weapons, chemical
agents, or electronic control devices
were deployed. The force continuum was
not exceeded. One point requires
separate attention. The subject stated
she had broken ligaments in her left arm
following the takedown. Under Florida's
post-arrest medical care standards, any
claim of injury must be documented and
addressed prior to booking. Whether this
occurred is not fully resolved in this
footage. Additionally, the subject's
firearm claim was never addressed on
camera, and no search incident to arrest
is documented in this footage. A lawful
arrest permits a full search of the
person. That step should be confirmed in
supplemental reports.
>> Have a seat. [snorts]
>> Crack pipe.
Can I keep this [ __ ]
I don't think her purse
>> Her cell phone?
>> I can go with her.
>> She's staying at my house.
>> No, but she can take that with her.
Yeah, we can take it to the jail with
her.
>> I want to try to get a hold
>> Um should we go to Palm Beach County
jail?
>> Okay.
>> Um
>> She's 24 hours at least.
>> What's the deal?
>> Uh more than likely Well, it's usually
What is it? 8 hours for
intoxication?
Um it's not a deal.
>> Once they set Once they set a bond.
>> Even if they did
>> I don't think they're going to do that
for that.
>> No.
>> They might hold her for eight. If not,
they could set a bond and and release
her.
>> Okay.
>> That's
Probably going to be trespass,
um
drunken disorderly, and then um
resist
>> the first assault that
>> Uh
>> Ooh, did this go on?
>> Um I was telling the other guy, um so we
were friends from like 10 years ago. She
came out like last week to visit.
>> Mhm.
>> Um I think something might have
triggered some kind of manic manic
episode or or she took something that I
don't know.
But she started slipping out in the car.
And she went into the bar. I went back
to the car cuz I was just like
you know?
>> Yeah.
>> The things she was saying.
I went back and I walked into all this
drama about the tab. Once I figured out
what was going on,
I just met her tonight. And she was
talking to her when I walked up. So once
I figured out what was going on, I paid
the tab. I apologized to everyone. It's
my first time here. I'm super
embarrassed.
>> Yeah, it's
>> And um I'm just I'm I'm worried. Also, I
have a daughter at home that I need to
go home to. It's a school night.
>> Yeah.
>> I can't bring this to my house. That's
why I was saying like
>> Understandable. Yeah.
>> 24 hours at least 16 hours. I just don't
want her to go back to the bar. I just
don't want her to go back to the bar.
>> And she's getting more and more riled
up.
And
>> not going to stop.
>> Yeah, I mean, honestly, the charges
three three misdemeanors.
>> Yeah.
>> I mean, it's not like she's looking at
hard time. This is more of a
you can't behave like this.
You're going to spend a night in jail.
That's That's really what the charges
are.
>> Yeah, no, I understand.
>> Okay.
>> So they originally was sitting at the
bar.
>> Yeah.
>> And they had a tab of
>> I I didn't drink at all. I was
>> 30 something dollars.
Um she claimed that she put $150 cash
in the
uh
checkbook.
We checked cameras.
>> Okay. I mean, this is really where it
went down because she was she was on her
way out. Um belligerent the whole time,
but she was still working her way off
the property. And then that's when she
turned back and continued to dance
around. Then she went back She made it
to about here, went back to valet,
talked to her friends. Her friends said,
"Hey, well, let's get you an Uber or
whatever." And then she starts getting
more and more belligerent, and it she
turns back again, and that's when I
raised my voice and I said, "Hey, you're
not going to keep going. Stop." And then
that's when she just That was it. We had
to grab her.
So, that's the friend That's her
That's her phone number.
>> Okay.
>> She uh she said she started getting
disorderly in the car on the way here.
>> What's her friend's name?
>> Uh I It's in the CAD. I ran her.
>> Uh
>> Lisa. Lisa.
>> A4.
>> I wrote it for DLC and fob.
Um
>> And if you guys could call me, too, like
before she's going to get released or
anything if that's possible or
>> We don't have control over that. That's
the jail that actually does that. Yeah.
>> Um she She agreed I should You could
tell her what you what you just told
her.
>> Hello. Hi, I'm Officer Hasson. Do you
need to fill out a form here?
Hey, can you fill
>> I did.
>> I'm sorry. I have a wedgie. I'm pulling
at it.
Do you mind No, I'm all right. You're
good.
And
All right. You
need to sign here?
No.
So, um
I just need to sign my paperwork when
he's on my arms. It's going to be fine.
It's Okay. I'll be done in
>> The arresting officer receives a B.
De-escalation was attempted across
multiple minutes with genuine variety.
Voluntary departure, transportation
assistance, identification requests,
repeated warnings before any physical
action was taken. Probable cause was
well established and clearly articulated
on camera. Force was proportionate to
documented resistance. Post-arrest
communication with the witness was
professional. The grade is capped at B
rather than A because two procedural
gaps, medical response documentation and
firearm claim follow-through, are not
resolved within this footage and
represent obligations that attach to
every arrest under these facts. The
subject receives a D. Every charge filed
against her is traceable to a specific
choice she made after being offered an
alternative. The trespass charge
required her to refuse departure. The
disorderly charge required her to
escalate rather than comply. The
resistance charge required her to
physically oppose a lawful arrest. She
exercised First Amendment rights
throughout the encounter and those
rights were not the basis for any
charge. Officers did not arrest her for
profanity or verbal confrontation. The
charges arise from her physical conduct
and her refusal to accept any of the
voluntary resolution options presented
to her across an extended period. The
firearm statement carries particular
weight. Even if untrue, it materially
altered the legal environment of every
officer on scene for the remainder of
the encounter. Statements made to law
enforcement during an active incident
have consequences. Three practical legal
lessons emerge from this encounter.
First, a voluntary compliance request is
the subject's most valuable opportunity.
Accepting it eliminates every charge
that follows from refusal. No
compliance, no trespass. No trespass, no
arrest. No arrest, no resistance charge.
Every subsequent charge was downstream
of that first refusal. Second,
statements made during an encounter are
evidence. "I have a gun", regardless of
intent, changes the legal calculus for
every officer present and can
independently justify an escalated
response under Graham. Third, for law
enforcement, the post-arrest obligations
are as legally significant as the arrest
itself. Injury claims must be
documented. Firearm claims must be
followed through. Procedural gaps in the
post-arrest phase are where civil
liability most commonly attaches after a
legally justified arrest. At the time of
this analysis, the outcome of any
criminal proceedings or civil claims
arising from this incident remains
unknown. Based on the legal record
captured in this footage, all three
charges carry sufficient probable cause
to survive a motion to dismiss at the
preliminary stage. Whether the subject's
mental state raised by a witness on
scene becomes a mitigating factor in
plea negotiations or at trial is a
question for the courts, not this
analysis. Let us know if there is an
interaction or legal topic that you
would like us to discuss in the comments
below. Thank you for watching and don't
forget to subscribe to our channel for
more content on police-court
interactions.